Final Conclusions

This chapter has explored Gen 25:19-34, looking in turn at sections concerning pre-birth events, the pre-birth of the twins, and the subsequent pre-birthright scene. It was my intention to show that while the beginnings of the Jacob Cycle might set in motion a series of events that will push the subsequent story in a particular direction, the ambiguity and complexity which permeates these verses should give the reader pause before making evaluations of either the characters in the text or what the passage as a whole might be saying.

In the first scene, it was noted that the oracle which Rebekah is given is ambiguous both grammatically and in terms of its hermeneutical implications. Moreover, the fact that election is an important motif does not entail that all events are pre-determined from this point onward. Thus, Rebekah is given an oracle by YHWH which, though ambiguous, sets the story on a particular trajectory. In the second scene we explored the birth narrative. Here the differences between the lads are highlighted from birth, continuing the theme of separation and strife. Although commentators have attempted

to show that Esau is being ridiculed or disparaged in the birth narrative, one could just as persuasively argue that it is the heel-grabbing Jacob who is commented upon.

Finally, in the third scene we saw the transaction regarding the birthright. This episode, like the oracle, is full of ambiguity and complexity. While the majority of commentators view Esau as negative in this story, a close reading of the text shows that there are alternative understandings. In the end we have Jacob obtaining the birthright, and the story of the brothers continues to move toward a climactic conflict as the tension of divine and human agency becomes palpable.

In conclusion, a few points can be made concerning how Gen 25:19-34 relates to the rest of the stories of Jacob and Esau. It might first be noted that while these verses are foundational for the Jacob Cycle, they need to be understood as part of the larger whole. Consequently, any opinions we may be formulating about Jacob or Esau need to be provisional at this stage in the story. Second, the tendency of commentators to see the portrayal of Esau as negative may be importing preconceptions into the text.

In turn, judgements made at this juncture may color our understandings of subsequent narratives, creating a self-perpetuating cycle.¹⁶³ Finally, the tension of divine and human agency is introduced into the story of Jacob and Esau, with little explicit guidance for the reader. Thus, major literary and theological questions are raised with few answers given.

What about the issue of election? To be sure, the discerning reader is faced with difficult questions regarding a God who would appear to choose some and not others.

Indeed, one can understand the temptation for those who might consider themselves part of the elect to justify the choice of Jacob over Esau. However, attempts at justification are not only theologically misguided, but they also do not do justice to the complexity of these texts. As was highlighted throughout this chapter, interpreters often find reasons to malign Esau, even when the texts themselves are ambiguous. If anything, these texts reinforce the idea that election is both a mystery and a scandal.

163 For example, Van Seters and Westermann argue that a distinction needs to be made between the

“Esaus” of Gen 25 and Gen 33, as they appear to be completely different characters, and thus must come from another hand. See John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992), 284-286; Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 417. However, one wonders if a more positive interpretation of Esau in Gen 25 might cohere more closely to the Esau they envisage in Gen 33.

Moreover, as Fretheim makes clear, if the oracle poses difficulty for the “unchosen,”

it also calls forth questions for those who may be “chosen”:

The narrator probably “sets up” the reader with this text. The temptation for later Israel (and all who consider themselves to be God’s elect) would certainly be to side with Jacob against Esau, to somehow justify his behaviors or even to suggest that whatever he did to obtain the birthright was appropriate to or congruent with God’s choice. At one level, such thinking is ethically dangerous, for it suggests that the elect are free to act as they please, without regard for the consequences. At another level, such thinking is theologically wrongheaded, for personal behaviors did not ground God’s choice to have the elder serve the younger. … The reader must also use care in discussing primogeniture and the reversal of the rights of the firstborn. To be sure, the oracle overturns traditional customs and understandings and opens the future to possibilities not inherent in existing structures and institutions. But it is just as true that one can idolize the reversal of the traditional for its own sake. Even more, one can be tempted to understand election in terms comparable to primogeniture! Election, too, can be used as a vehicle to exclude others and exalt one’s rights and privileges.¹⁶⁴

Fretheim’s caution here is an important one, and it leads us to our next question regarding Esau: if Esau has indeed been passed over, does his status as the unchosen son entail that he is cursed? It is to Gen 27 and this question that we now turn.

164 Fretheim, “Genesis,” 523-524.